Thoughts.

So I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. As a defensive player this year, I spent a ton of time on the other side of the disc, trying to deny my quarry all that he desired.

Mostly I’ve been thinking about what makes for good defense. As an individual player, what can I do, how can I play to best ensure the D line generates a turn?

The answer I came up with? Well, it depends.

The way I see it, there are two primary ways to play defense: smart defense and emotional defense. I’ll qualify this first by saying the two are not mutally exclusive, and second by saying that this is a very general classification.

Smart defense means, more often than not, playing to contain. A smart defender anticipates what his mark wants and makes it difficult, if not taking it away entirely. A smart defender realizes the various situations he is in–is my man a viable threat to go deep given current position/situation? am I sure laying out for a 50% chance of a D is worth giving up the force for 2 seconds if I miss, or is it more practical to set a hard mark right away and prevent flow?–and responds accordingly, limiting the threat of his man. Ideally, a smart defender all but neutralizes the impact of the player he’s guarding on the field.

Emotional defense means busting ass and trying to make every play. An emotional defender always lays out for those close discs on in cuts, throws an aggressive mark, trying to force a turn. An emotional defender’s primary objective is to generate turns–whether this is through baiting opportunities, or just through running hard and laying it all out.

I’ve come to realize I’m much more of a smart defender than an emotional defender. I think, for much of the season, I’d been really lacking in good, emotional defense, conceding too much in one way or another in an effort to dictate and keep from being beaten at what I chose to take away. Not as effective as I could have been.
I started incorporating more emotional defense into my game, fighting harder to get a D on whatever my man was trying to get, and my defense improved accordingly. Still very much disposed towards smart defense, but in position to make plays more often. This is pretty much where I’m at right now.

Most of what I’ve been thinking about is, simply, would I be a better defender if I become a more aggressive, emotional defender? Would the extra D’s I might generate from those close bids and the occasoinal burn from overcommitting to a cut outweigh the “team D” effect from simply doing my job and holding the force and keeping my man in check? It’s hard to say.

I feel like there’s a place for both styles of play, though. In some conditions, for example–windy conditions comes to mind–there’s no need to “force” the D as much, since turnover rate is naturally higher. In this sort of situation, giving up the easy breakside throw or getting too far out of position trying to make a great play has a higher degree of risk vs. reward as a defender. Turns are easier to come by, so why risk letting the other team score and put the ball in your court when you can force them to keep playing perfect to do the same thing?

In other conditions though–high level play, in non-windy conditions, say–the utility of smart defense is lessened, and getting that one key D can be potentially game-changing. The turnover environment is lower–a team runs a smooth offense that doesn’t shoot itself in the foot and doesn’t take exceptionally large risks (ie hucks for completions, not for skies)–so rather than simply do one’s job and only delay the inevitable, it might be more valuable to be the guy who lays out for every close disc (not that there would be many), hoping to generate a turn where there normally wouldn’t be one.
Of course, if a team has a good strategy to force an offense to take risks, or can otherwise increase the turnover environment through a team strategy where everyone doing their job is essential, then smart defense would again be more beneficial. This would almost be ideal, in my book. Force the other team to be perfect, knowing (or hoping) that they aren’t, rather than relying on the (at a level where teams are evenly matched, athletically) low chance of forcing a D.

There is a middle ground, but finding the balance can be hard. I would think a defense that alternates between smart and agressive defense–lulling an offense into thinking a team is playing to contain and won’t make the plays and then turning it on, snapping them out of their comfort zone with tight, aggressive D–might have the most success in the long run, but I’d be lying if I said I had a good mastery of that balance.

I’m about to wander into the realm of incoherency at this late hour, so I’ll leave it at that. In practical terms, whether one leans smart or emotional should always vary with a team or player’s strengths, and from there it should adjust to the given conditions/competition. Getting fired up has its place, but few things are worse than a questionable bid that fails and leaves the field wide open for the opponent. By the same token, taking a step back and playing smart to keep your opponent in check can be very useful, but sometimes the risk needs to be taken. Those close plays a smart player almost gets are the same plays an emotional player eats up.

Which side of the risk/reward curve do you (you is, of course, a term I use very loosely, since there are very few who read this) lean towards?

Finally over my spring term hump. Finals soon, but I expect to get at least a few productive blog posts in over the coming month. Been taking a step back from the game proper, but still thinking lots.

Related posts:

1. College Defense: Minimize Threat, or Maximize D Opportunities?
2. More on Emotional Defense
3. A Brief Overview: Catching, Defense, Strategy, etc.
4. Defense!
5. Marks: Or, the OTHER Most Important Thing in Ultimate